Well, at least you made a post with a point for a change.
Climate: The Movie
- Thread starter berty3000
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 221031
That’s low brow and funnyWell, at least you made a post with a point for a change.
Depends whether it is profitable or not; turnover doesn't come into it.
That's where you are going wrong; there are alternatives already - bio-derived, as one example - but you're wedded to oil-derived as being essential.
Not if the current differential between bio- and petro- pricing is overtaken by the necessity to ramp up petro-derived pricing, to make it viable.
It is fine to challenge the point, but IMO FWIW and in this case, yours was more a case of challenging the man (Filly).
No, I am not back - and no intention of getting involved, it is pointless to do so - a waste of time and effort.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 15,336
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- Country
Yea, gut feelings are hard work...
And choosing to defend your errors is soooooo wearing...............
what do you think "viable" means?
1) Im not "wedded to oil-derived as being essential"
2) "alternatives are already available" -no they arent, not in the volume required
my post made this clear: I said "its highly unlikely alternatives will take over for 50+ years"
I may well be wrong with the timeline, but its a fact the world is reliant on petrochemicals (Almost 90 per cent of chemical products contain oil as a raw material, most of all plastics) and replacing it will take many years
"if"
BTW: we cant possibly produce enough bio fuels to replace fossil fuel volumes
And whilst biofuels can replace petrochemicals, the technology is not there for many of those chemicals
No, I said it made no sense for this reason:
Filly made the point that reducing output would not be commercially possible
Filly did not provide any evidence to support his claim, so we have to rely on general rule of thumb as supporting evidence
Filly and you are therefore using this argument: "No industry can ever lower production levels because it makes them unable to continue" -you are welcome to support this argument if you have the evidence.
94% of oil comes from 1500 oil fields, with a total of 65,000 oil fields no idea how many actual well heads
apparently there are 29 million abandoned wells
You are welcome to provide evidence that lowering those numbers would not be viable
Thats rather sad
Harry doesnt want to get involved in anything which might prove his beliefs are wrong
Lower volumes will make the supporting infrastructure more expensive proportionally. That will result in the more expensive suppliers becoming non-viable. The cheapest fields and supplies will remain and as volumes continue to drop the competition will kill off more.
It's capitalism, this is what it does.
It's capitalism, this is what it does.
I never mentioned fuels.
We were discussing chemicals.
While you're accusing others of having opinions and providing no evidence for them, you're doing the same - projecting that alternatives to petro-derived chemicals are not viable for "50+ years".
You ought to have a pop a telling the truth. It's so much easier.
Some of your points of view, I support and keenly agree with. On this I do not, because you are QUITE WRONG. I am entitled to my decisions, just as you are too. Insults will not change my mind, only logical and compulsive argument - I have seen none, so far.
apologies I meant bio derived
I wasnt projecting, my post very clearly said "I think" -it was a post for discussion, never said it was fact
the evidence does show we have no chance of replacing petro chemicals for many years
I wasnt accusing Filly of providing no evidence, I said in the absence of evidence we have to take rule of thumb as a guide -please respond to what I said, not what you think you heard
"Filly made the point that reducing output would not be commercially possible
Filly did not provide any evidence to support his claim, so we have to rely on general rule of thumb as supporting evidence
Filly and you are therefore using this argument: "No industry can ever lower production levels because it makes them unable to continue" -you are welcome to support this argument if you have the evidence."
you wont look so you wont find -not a logical or compulsive argument
Harry says: "my mind is made up" -gut feeling in other words
Earth is warming rapidly.
There are no natural causes that could be responsible, every suggestion has been found lacking. CO2 is way up on historical norms because of human activity. It is a known greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere.
The climate is changing and it's caused by CO2.
It's pretty simple at heart, the denialists want to make it more complicated to avoid facing the reality but if you boil it down to basics it makes sense.
- Status